Intel Corporation v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Background

The Immigration and Nationality Act allows United States employers to petition for H-1B visas for qualified temporary foreign workers in specialty occupations. Because Congress limits the number of H-1B visas available each fiscal year, the agency uses a lottery. Employers must first register beneficiaries electronically, and only employers whose registrations are selected may file petitions during the filing period stated in the selection notice.

Intel submitted more than 1,000 registrations for the fiscal-year 2022 lottery through online representative accounts registered to attorneys Juan Flamand and Hannah Jahn. USCIS selected 348 Intel registrations in the first round and another 119 in the second round. On November 19, 2021, USCIS announced a third round of selections and stated that the filing period would run from November 22, 2021, through February 23, 2022.

Mr. Flamand accessed his online account before USCIS finished uploading all of the selected registrations, so the registrations involved in this case were not included in the files he initially downloaded. USCIS later sent him an email and text message stating that changes had been made to his account. He did not log in again because he believed the messages concerned records he had already downloaded. About six months after the filing deadline, Intel tried to file five petitions and asked USCIS to accept them late. USCIS rejected them without substantive review.

Intel sued USCIS, Ur Mendoza Jaddou in her official capacity as USCIS Director, and Donna P. Campagnolo in her official capacity as Director of USCIS’s California Service Center. Intel asserted claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act and sought relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Mandamus Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. In its amended complaint, Intel also asserted a claim under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Standing

USCIS argued at summary judgment that Intel lacked standing because its injury was not traceable to USCIS. The court rejected that argument. It held that Intel’s evidence showed that USCIS’s allegedly inadequate notification process was a causal factor in Intel’s failure to obtain H-1B visas, even if Intel’s own conduct or other events also contributed. The court therefore declined to rule for USCIS on jurisdictional grounds.

Due-Process Claim

The court first held that Intel had a protected property interest in receiving the visas associated with the selected registrations. Under the governing law and regulations, once USCIS selected the registrations, Intel had at least a reasonable expectation that USCIS would approve the related petitions if they established eligibility.

The court then applied the constitutional test for procedural due process, which considers the private interest affected, the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s burden of providing those safeguards. The court found that Intel’s interest was meaningful but limited because the loss was temporary and affected only one fiscal year. It also found that USCIS’s procedures were reasonably calculated to inform Intel: USCIS placed beneficiary-specific notices in the representative’s online account and sent the representative an email and text message about account changes.

The court acknowledged that the notices could have been clearer, but concluded that the risk of an erroneous deprivation was not constitutionally excessive. It also found that requiring USCIS to use more detailed written notices would impose an additional burden. Because due process did not require procedures eliminating every possibility of attorney error, the court granted USCIS summary judgment on Intel’s due-process claim.

Immigration and Administrative-Law Claims

The court also granted USCIS summary judgment on Intel’s claim that the agency violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations. It found that USCIS notified petitioners of the third-round selections through the November 19 public announcement and the November 20 email and text messages, and notified Intel of the specific selected beneficiaries through selection notices uploaded to the representative’s online account.

The court determined that the regulations did not require more. Intel received actual notice of the selections and the named beneficiaries but did not review the notices. Because Intel filed the petitions more than six months after the filing-period deadline, the court held that USCIS properly rejected them as untimely. The court also concluded that any discretionary authority USCIS might have had to reopen or reconsider the petitions did not mean the agency was required to accept them.

The court rejected Intel’s argument that USCIS’s actions lacked substantial evidence or a rational basis and were arbitrary and capricious. It found that USCIS properly applied and complied with the Immigration and Nationality Act and its regulations when notifying Intel and rejecting the late petitions.

Disposition

Judge P. Casey Pitts granted USCIS’s motion for summary judgment and denied Intel’s cross-motion for summary judgment.